Lyndon H. Larouche, Jr. emerged, over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, to rank among the most controversial international political ﬁgures of his time. This controversy, which also features such related issues as his efforts to destroy the international drug traffic and his initiating role in formulating what President Ronald Reagan announced on March 23, 1983 as the “Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),” is principally rooted not just in domestic U.S. issues, but also in global political-economic considerations.
The recent, fresh demonstration of his exceptional qualifications as a long-range economic forecaster, has placed LaRouche at the center of the presently erupting global systemic crisis of the world’s economy.
Both Lyndon LaRouche’s standing as an internationally known economist, and his exceptional successes as a long-range forecaster, are the outgrowths of his original discoveries of physical principle, dating from a project conducted during the 1948-1952 interval. These discoveries arose out of his opposition to Bertrand Russell devotee Professor Norbert Wiener’s efforts, as in the latter’s 1948 Cybernetics, to apply so-called “information theory” to communication of ideas. As part of that same project, he also opposed Russell devotee John von Neumann’s efforts to degrade real economic processes to solutions for systems of simultaneous linear inequalities.
The outcome of this project was LaRouche’s introduction of axiomatically non-linear notions of individual human cognition, explicitly, to that science of physical economy which had been first established by the relevant 1671-1716 work of Gottfried Leibniz. His own work located the determining, nonlinear factor in increase of society’s potential relative population-density in the relations exemplified by the role of the machine-tool principle in linking proof-of-principle experiments to the development of advanced designs of both products and productive processes.
In his subsequent search for a metrical standard for this treatment of the functional role of cognition, he adopted the Leibniz-Gauss-Riemann standpoint, as represented by Bernhard Riemann’s 1854 habilitation dissertation. Hence, the employment of Riemannian conceptions to LaRouche’s own discoveries became known as the LaRouche-Riemann Method.
Unlike all of the other leading candidates for the U.S. presidency since 1945, I am an influential original thinker. This is not to suggest that such prospective candidates as Vice President George Bush and Senator Robert Dole are lacking in intelligence or executive abilities. For the past forty years, the successful candidates for the presidency have been persons who, in the customary manner of speaking, advanced their political career up to that point, by doing “the right thing at the right time,” saying and doing nothing which will make enemies among important factions of the “establishment.” Bush and Dole, for example have adapted to those rules for success under ordinary conditions.
However, this is a crisis; in such crises, what is customarily successful becomes a failure. Our nation has once again entered into a time when only the unusual succeeds, and the usual fails. We have entered into a period of crisis in which only original thinkers are qualified to lead.
On paper, our nation is a constitutional democratic republic. In reality, it has not been such a republic for approximately one hundred years, certainly not since the sweeping changes in our form of government introduced during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. Most of the time, the policies of government, the selection of most leading candidates for federal office, and the majority of popular opinion, have been regulated by behind-the-scenes committees representing what is called “the establishment.”
Under this arrangement, candidates for leading office present themselves, like job applicants for corporate executive appointments, to this “establishment.” The “establishment” either gives such candidates permission to campaign, or “not at this time.” If given such permission, the candidate so “authorized” seeks backing for his or her election by the “establishment,” by proving to the “establishment” that he or she can “sell” the policy which the establishment has decided to push at that time.
... I began to understand this in 1947. ... I wished General Dwight Eisenhower to campaign for the 1948 Democratic nomination. The general replied to me, stating agreement with my policy arguments in support of his candidacy, but informing me his candidacy was not appropriate at that time. There is no doubt that Eisenhower could have won the 1948 nomination and election by a landslide, had the “establishment” permitted him to campaign. …
However, across the “developing world," especially in China, leaders eager to overcome backwardness sought out answers to questions such as: “How did America become a powerful, productive force in the world?” “How can we apply LaRouche’s ideas to overcome our own problems and secure a better future for our people?”
Many of the answers are found in this book, first published in 2000. Much of it was written in response to questions or requests from the “developing world.” The biggest question which this book answered was “How can we get around the strangulation of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities so we can actually begin to build up our nations?”
After a long detour down the suicidal path of “post-industrial society,” Americans too face almost the same problem today as did the “developing countries” before they adopted LaRouche’s ideas for Hamiltonian banking on a global scale to bypass the IMF. Will America finally give up subservience to Wall Street and London imperial banking and join with the New Paradigm of LaRouche’s Hamiltonian World Land-Bridge development banks?
The answer to that question is in this book and in your decision to take some responsibility to ensure that America returns to its Hamiltonian roots.
The author is the founder and contributing editor of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, whose forecasts for the US. economy have been the most accurate in the history of economics.